RE: ID References Question

[<Kalyan.Tata@nokia.com>]

Thanks a lot Bert, 
I will change as you suggested.

Thanks
kalyan
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: 17 October, 2003 02:02
To: Tata Kalyan (NES/MtView); bwijnen@lucent.com; mibs@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: ID References Question


> hi Bert,
> 	The reply is a bit confusing to me. 
> 	This is the abstract section. Is this OK?
> 
> ----
> This specification defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for 
> use with SNMP-based network management. In particular, it defines 
> objects for configuring, monitoring, and controlling routers that 
> employ the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol  for both IPv4 and 
> IPv6 as defined in draft-ietf-vrrp-spec-v2-09.txt [RFCxxxx] and 
> draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-04.txt [RFCyyyy]. This memo obsoletes 
> RFC 2787 [RFC2787].
> ----
> 
RFC-Editor does NOT want citations in abstract. I bet they will "fix"
that if you leave them in. Better would be an abstract aka:

 This specification defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for 
 use with SNMP-based network management. In particular, it defines 
 objects for configuring, monitoring, and controlling routers that 
 employ the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol  for both IPv4 and 
 IPv6 as defined in RFC xxxx (RFC-editor, this is currently 
 draft-ietf-vrrp-spec-v2-09.txt) and RFC yyyy (RFC-Editor, this is
 currently draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-04.txt). This memo obsoletes 
 RFC 2787.

That way RFC Editor knows what to do I think.

> I have all the above RFC in normative references.
>
I would kepp them.

Bert 
> Thanks
> kalyan
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: 16 October, 2003 03:17
> To: Tata Kalyan (NES/MtView); mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ID References Question
> 
> 
> > 
> > hi,
> > 	We are submitting a draft defining unified MIB for 
> VRRPv2 and VRRPv3
> > 	 protocol. 
> > 	I am going through the review guidelines to verify that 
> the draft is
> > 	conforming to all the requirements. I have the 
> following questions:
> > 
> > 	The latest documents for both VRRPv2 and VRRPv3 protocols are in
> > 	 the drafts stage.
> > 	Is it OK to refer to these draft documents in the draft we are 
> > 	submitting? Especially, Is it Ok to refer these drafts in the 
> > 	'Abstract' section.
> > 
> You cannot put citations in the abstract section at all (see 
> RFC-Editor 
> page that defines the policy)
>    http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html
> specifically:
>    http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abstract
> 
> Based on the below it is OK to put something in abstract aka
>   (RFC xxxx)
> 
> > 	in the references section can we specify for example:
> > 
> >    [rfcxxxx]  Robert Hinden, "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol",
> >               (draft-ietf-vrrp-spec-v2-09.txt), August 2003.
> > 
> This looks ok to me. Sounds as a normative ref even.
> You MIB doc will not becoem RFC till the rfcxxxx is also an RFC
> and RFC-Editor normally takes care of syncing them up.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Bert
> > Thanks
> > kalyan
> > 
>